Founders Brewing Company Response To Racial Discrimination Lawsuit

Case 2:18-cv-12631-PDB-EAS ECF No. 6 filed 09/17/18 PageID.
22 Page 1 of 21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TRACY EVANS,
Case No. 2:18-cv-12631
Plaintiff.
V. Hon. Paul D. Borman
CANAL STREET BREWING CO., L.L.C.

dl3/a FOUNDERS BREWING COMPANY,
Defendant.
Jack W. Schuiz(P78078) Michael E. Stroster(P58982)

SCHULZ GOTHAM PEG Patrick M. Edsenga (P74593)
Attorneys for Plaintiff MILLER JOHNSON
P.O. Box 44855 Attorneys for Defendant
Detroit. MI 48244 45 Ottawa Avenue, S.W., Suite I ICQ
(313) 246-3590 P.O. Box 306
iackwschulz'^ CTnaiI.com Grand Rapids. MI 49501-0306
(616)831-1700
strostenn@milI cri ohnson.com
edsen uap@m i 11eri ohnson.com
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF^S COMPLAINT
Defendant Canal Street Brewing Co., LLC, d/b/a Founders Brewing Company, by
its attorneys. Miller Johnson, answers Plaintiffs Complaint as follows:
INTRODUCTION
I. Plaintiff Tracy Evans was employed with the Defendant Founders from
2014 until he was terminated in 2018, shortly after notifying his supervisor he planned to meet
with Human Resources ("HR") to discuss Founder's racist work environment. On information
and belief. Plaintiff was the first and only minority manager at Founders. To Plaintiffs dismay.
Case 2:18-cv-12631-PDB-EAS ECF No. 6 filed 09/17/18 PageID.23 Page 2 of 21
his coworkers used racial slurs around him and with other employees. In fact, the company itself
named its printers in a blatantly racist fashion. Plaintiff complained to HR throughout his
employment, but his complaints fell upon deaf ears. It is Plaintiffs belief that he received unequal
treatment throughout his employment and was denied a promotion due to his race.
In late 2017, Plaintiff sought new beginnings within the company by moving to its
newly opening Detroit taproom. However, he realized the same practices of ignoring racially
insensitive comments and unequal treatment made their way to the new facility' as well. After a
few shockingly racist comments by a coworker and the company's failure to discipline the
employee beyond a simple write-up. Plaintiff notified his supervisor he intended to meet with
Human Resources to discuss his treatment and ongoing issues. He was fired a few days later for
pretextual reasons.
Within this Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he received unequal treatment, was
denied a promotion, and was ultimately terminated based on his race and in retaliation for
complaints regarding his treatment in violation of his rights under 42 U.S.C. §2000 et seq., 42
U.S.C. § I98I, and Michigan's Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.2101 et. Seq.
ANSWER: Paragraph 1 of the Complaint is introductory in nature, to which no response
is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant refers to its answers to the
allegations in Paragraphs 2-61 contained herein. Defendant further admits that Plaintiff
purports to bring claims against it for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Michigan's Elliot-
Larson Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.20101, et seq. but denies any and all liability' with respect
to Plaintiffs claims, and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to recovery, in any amount and in
any form. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
PARTIES
2. PlaintiffTracy Evans is an African-American individual who was employed
with the Defendant and resides in Wayne County, Michigan.
ANSWER: Defendant admits it employed Plaintiff in various positions from November
2013 through June 2018. Defendant further admits upon information and belief that
Plaintiff is an African-American individual. Defendant lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 2.
3. Defendant Canal Street Brewing Co., LLC, d/b/a Founders Brewing
Company, is a limited liability corporation headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Founders'
Detroit taproom is located at 456 Charlotte Street, Detroit, Wayne County, Michigan 48201.
.ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 3.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This Court has original jurisdiction of Plaintiffs § 1981 claims pursuant to
28U.S.C. §1331.
ANSWER: Defendant denies that its actions support any claim asserted by Plaintiff in this
Complaint, but Defendant does not dispute that the Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs
Section 1981 claims.
5. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs
and attorney fees.
ANSWER: Defendant denies that any amount is legitimately in controversy, but
Defendant does not dispute that this Court has jurisdiction over this action.
6. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs state law claims.
ANSWER: Defendant denies that its actions support any claim asserted by Plaintiff in this
Complaint, but Defendant does not dispute that the Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs
state law claims.
7. This Court is the proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) as a
significant amount of the acts and omissions giving rise to this complaint occurred in Wayne
County.
ANSWER: Defendant denies that it engaged in any acts or omissions that gave rise to a
legitimate cause of action in Wayne County, but Defendant does not dispute that venue is
proper in this action.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
8. Plaintiff Tracy Evans("Plaintiff or "Mr. Evans")is African-American and
a member of a protected class based on his race.
ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 8 upon information and belief.
9. Plaintiff began working for Defendant Canal Street Brewing Co., LLC,
dT)/a Founders Brewing Company ("Founders"), as a Packaging Machine Operator in 2014 in its
Grand Rapids. Michigan facility.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that it hired Plaintiff as a Packaging Machine Operator at
its facility in Grand Rapids, Michigan on November 4, 2013. Defendant denies all remaining
allegations in Paragraph 9 because they are untrue.

10. When Plaintiff first started at the production facility. Plaintiff was one of
three total minorities out of more than seventy employees. Upon leaving. Plaintiff was one of an
estimated seven minorities out of close to Iwo-hundred employees.
.\NSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations in Paragraph 10.
11. Within his first year. Plaintiff was promoted to an Assistant Shift Lead for
the Production Department. Plaintiff was the only minority of around eight total Assistant Shift
Leads.
ANSWER: Defendant denies that Plaintiff was promoted to Assistant Shift Lead "within
his first year." Defendant also denies that there were "around eight total Assistant Shift
Leads." In further answer,Defendant promoted Plaintiff to second shift Assistant Shift Lead
on November 30, 2014, and Plaintiff was in one of five Assistant Shift Lead positions in the
Production Department at that time. Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Plaintiff was the only minority
Assistant Shift Lead.
12. During his employment. Plaintiff was subjected to disparate scrutiny and
disciplinary practices when compared to his Caucasian comparators.
.ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 12 because they are untrue.
13. In one instance. Plaintiff was written up for being 1-3 minutes late
consistently. However, his white eoworkers were equally if not more frequently late.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that Plaintiff received a verbal warning on May 5, 2014 for
tardiness. In further answer. Plaintiff received a verbal warning on May 5 because he was
late for 26 of his previous 53 scheduled shifts and, on average, was six minutes late for those
shifts. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 13 because they are untrue.
14. Around 2015, Plaintiff was appalled to find that Founders had electronically
named its printers in a manner blatantly racist to African-Americans. Specifically, the facility's
upstairs printer used by management employees was named the "white guy printer" and the
downstairs general employee printer was named "black guy printer."
ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 14 because they are untrue.
15. Plaintiff also was denied a promotion due to his race. In late 2015, Plaintiff
applied for a promotion as a Production Lead. Plaintiff was one of three employees to apply for
two openings. The other two Caucasian individuals were ultimately promoted to the positions
despite being trained directly by Plaintiffand being with the company for a shorter amount oftime.
Additionally, these Caucasian individuals each had a recent terminable incident shortly before
their promotions at a company party; one employee crashed his vehicle into a parked car while
intoxicated and the other exposed his genitalia to the partygoers. Although Plaintiff had no such
incidents in his employment history, both individuals were selected for promotion over him.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that Plaintiff applied for the position of Production Lead in
October 2016 and that, at that time, there was only one opening for a Production Lead but
that another Production Lead position opened up a short time later. Defendant admits that
Plaintiff w as one of three Assistant Shift Leads to apply for this position, and that the other
two Assistant Shift Leads were selected for the position. Upon information and belief.
Defendant admits that the two Assistant Shift Leads selected for the Production Lead
positions were Caucasian and that those individuals began employment at Defendant a short
time after Plaintiff. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 15 because
they are untrue.
16. In October 2017, Plaintiff saw an opportunity for a change and applied for
a lateral transfer as the Events and Promotions Manager in the newly-opening taproom in Detroit.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that in August 2017 Plaintiff applied for a promotion to
Events and Promotions Manager for its soon-to-be-opened Detroit taproom. Defendant
denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 16 because they are untrue.
17. Prior to moving to Detroit, Plaintiff was approached by a Caucasian
employee who exclaimed "What's up with Detroit my nigger?" Plaintiff immediately told the
employee that it was not right for him to say that statement. Plaintiff also reported the employee
to Human Resources. However, the employee continued to work for Founders with Plaintiff.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that Plaintiff voiced a complaint to its Human Resources
Department in September 2017 that a co-worker, who continues to work for Defendant,
approached him and made the comment alleged in Paragraph 17. In further answer, upon
receiving this report. Defendant's Human Resources Representative spoke with Plaintiff and
told Plaintiff that she would investigate the allegation and that the offending employee would
face disciplinary action if the allegation was substantiated. Plaintiff responded that he did
not want the offending employee to be fired and preferred to have a conversation with the
offending employee about the comment. Defendant's Human Resources Representative then
investigated Plaintiffs complaint and took prompt remedial measures to cause this conduct
to cease, including issuing a disciplinary action to Plaintiffs co-worker. Upon information
and belief. Plaintiff and the offending co-worker met and the offending co-worker apologized
to Plaintiff and Plaintiff accepted his apology. Defendant denies all remaining allegations in
Paragraph 17.
18. Shortly after. Plaintiff officially transferred to the Detroit taproom searching
for fresh beginnings with the company. However, similar racial incidents continued to occur in
Detroit as well.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that Plaintiff accepted a promotion to become the Events
and Promotions Manager at Defendant's soon-to-be-opened Detroit taproom beginning in
October 2017. In further answer, Defendant selected Plaintiff for this promotion out of 294
applicants for the position. Defendant denies that Plaintiff took this promotion because he
was "searching for fresh beginnings." Defendant denies all remaining allegations in
Paragraph 18 because they are untrue.
19. In one incident, the employees were discussing ex-Detroit mayor Kwame
Kilpatriek. Following Plaintiff expressing his views, a Caucasian coworker looked at Plaintiff and
said he needed to explain to Plaintiff what it meant to be the "head nigger in charge." Plaintiff
immediately expressed his displeasure with the comment, to which the Caucasian coworker
reaffirmed his statement. Plaintiff immediately notified the General Manager Dominic Ryan
("GM Ryan") and a Human Resources employee, Marguex Bouwkamp, who was present. The
two stated that they were simply going to write the Caucasian employee up for the incident.
Plaintiff expressed his frustration with the company taking a blind eye to blatant racism against
him and allowing an overtly racist culture. Plaintiff also stated that Founders should not allow this
to happen. However, nothing was done beyond the write-up.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that Plaintiff reported that a co-worker made a comment
similar to the one alleged in Paragraph 19 to General Manager Dominic Ryan and Human
8
Resources representative Marguex Bouwkamp. Defendant admits that Mr. Ryan and Ms.
Bouwkamp told Plaintiff they would investigate his complaint, discuss the appropriate
disciplinary action for the offending employee after completing their investigation, and
follow up with Plaintiff. After completing its investigation, Defendant admits that Ms.
Bouwkamp and Mr. Ryan took prompt remedial action, including issuing a written
disciplinary warning to the offending employee and informing that employee that additional
actions of this nature could result in termination of his employment. Defendant denies that
Ms. Bouwkamp and Mr. Ryan told Plaintiff that they would "simply" w rite up the offending
co-worker. Defendant denies that Plaintiff "expressed his frustration with the company
taking a blind eye to blatant racism against him and allowing an overtly racist culture" or
that Plaintiff "stated that [Defendant] should not allow this to happen." Defendant also
denies that "nothing was done beyond the write up." Defendant denies all remaining
20. Later, Plaintiff heard from other employees that the Caueasian employee
was still making raeist comments including but not limited to a complaint about how "dark" the
taproom's eliental is. The employee is still employed.
ANSWER: Defendant denies that the employee referenced in Paragraph 19 remains
employed by Defendant. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 20.
21. Plaintiff suffered because of Founder's tolerance for a raeist internal
corporate culture.
ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 21 because it is untrue.

22. Further, the position itself was challenging as Plaintiff was expected to plan
large scale projects without any budget whatsoever. Additionally, in at least one instance. Plaintiff
had planned an entire project and obtained the permits only to have the entire event moved to
another location requiring completely different permits. Plaintiff was blamed for the delay despite
the necessity of new permits.
23. Following the continued racism, Plaintiff scheduled a personal day off on
or around June 1, 2018 to drive to Grand Rapids, Michigan to speak with Founders Human
Resources personnel about the incidents and his work environment.
24. On May 31,2018,the day prior to his scheduled day off. Plaintiff was called
into GM Ryan's office to discuss an ongoing project that Plaintiff was working on. GM Ryan
urged Plaintiff to finish the project and questioned Plaintiffs choice to schedule a personal day on
June 1, 2018.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that on May 31, 2018, General Manager Dominic Ryan told
Plaintiff that he needed to provide an event proposal for an event that Plaintiff was
attempting to gain Defendant's approval to hold at Defendant's Detroit Taproom. In further
answer, prior to May 31, Plaintiff had repeatedly failed to submit a complete budget or
provide other necessary information in the event proposal that Defendant needed to evaluate
and approve the proposed event, despite Defendant's repeated directions that Plaintiff must
submit a completed event proposal. For instance, on May 22, 2018, General Manager
Dominic Ryan told Plaintiff that the event proposal he submitted was incomplete and lacking
key information and that Plaintiff must submit a complete event proposal by May 25, 2018.
10
Plaintiff, however, did not submit the budget proposal on May 25 as required, so Mr. Ryan
gave Plaintiff until May 31, 2018 to submit the complete event proposal. Plaintiff also failed
to meet that May 31 deadline so Mr. Ryan gave Plaintiff yet another extension until June 1
to provide a complete event proposal, but Plaintiff failed to meet this deadline with a
complete event proposal. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 24
because they are untrue.
25. In response, Plaintiff explicitly explained that he scheduled the day off so
that he could discuss his treatment due to his race and the racist incidents he had witnessed with
Founders' Human Resources personnel in person. Plaintiff also expressed his frustration that the
company continued to employ the employee who had said the word "nigger" and continues to
make other racist comments. Plaintiff stated to GM Ryan that he did not feel comfortable working
alongside the employee.
26. GM Ryan reaffirmed that he needed something done on the project from
Plaintiff tomorrow (the day Plaintiff explained that he planned to see HR). As a result, Plaintiff
postponed his scheduled day off for fear of retaliation.
ANSWER: Defendant admits that on May 31, 2018,GM Ryan gave Plaintiff an additional
day to complete his already-late event proposal. Defendant denies the remaining allegations
in Paragraph 26 because they are untrue.
27. The following Monday, Plaintiffs first work day after his originally
scheduled day off. Plaintiff was called into GM Ryan's office. Upon entering, Plaintiff noticed
Human Resources Director, Audrey Stricter ("Stricter"), was present. Plaintiff assumed the
purpose of the meeting was to discuss the complaints he had made to GM Ryan a few days earlier.
11
Instead, GM Ryan and Stricter informed Plaintiff that he was tenninated and handed him a
Separation Agreement, which Plaintiff refused to sign.
ANSWER: Defendant denies that Plaintiff met with General Manager Dominic Ryan and
Defendant's Human Resources Director Audrey Strieter on Monday, June 4, 2018, as
Plaintiff did not work that day. In further answer, this meeting occurred on Tuesday, June
5, 2018 in Mr. Ryan's office at the Defendant's Detroit taproom. Defendant admits that Mr.
Ryan and Ms.Strieter informed Plaintiff that his employment was being terminated effective
immediately and offered Plaintiff the opportunity to receive severance pay by executing a
separation agreement, which Plaintiff later declined. Defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to what Plaintiff""assumed" this meeting was about.
Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 27 because they are untrue.
28. As a result of Defendant's conduct. Plaintiff suffered substantial harm,
including significant financial loss, embarrassment, stress, and frustration.
29. In August 2018, Plaintiff filed a charge of racial discrimination and
retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. As of the date of this filing.
Plaintiff has not been issued his right to sue pursuant to Title VII. However, Plaintiff intends to
amend this Complaint to add additional claims pursuant to Title VII mirroring those herein once
the right to sue is issued.
ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 29.
12
COUNT I
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION - 42 U.S.C. ^1981
30. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
ANSWER: Defendant reincorporates by reference its responses to the allegations in all
preceding paragraphs.
31. Plaintiff is a member of a protected minority class.
ANSWER: Admitted upon information and belief.
32. As an employee. Plaintiff had a contractual employment relationship with
Defendant Founders.
ÂNSWER: Paragraph 32 states a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph
32.
33. Plaintiff was disciplined and tenninated while performing at the same level
as Caucasian comparators and allegedly engaging in the exact same conduct as Caucasian
employees.
34. Plaintiff alleges that he received disparate treatment compared to Caucasian
comparators in violation of his right to make and enforce contracts pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
35. Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated in violation of his right to make and
enforce contracts pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
36. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful actions, Plaintiff
has sustained injuries and damages including, but not limited to, loss of pay, loss of vacation and
13
sick days, loss of career opportunities, humiliation and embarrassment, mental anguish and
emotional distress, loss of professional reputation and loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday
life, including the right to pursue gainful occupation of choice and has incurred attorney fees.
COUNT II
DENYING PROMOTION ON THE BASIS OF RACE - 42 U.S.C. ^1981
ANSW1ER: Defendant reincorporates by reference its responses to the allegations in all
38. During his employment with Defendant. Plaintiff applied for a promotion
as a Production Lead, for which there were two openings.
October 2016 and that initially there was one opening for a Production Lead but that another
Production Lead position opened up a short time later. Defendant denies all remaining
39. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of race by selecting
two Caucasian employees over him with inferior skill sets, less seniority, and each had recently
demonstrated egregious behavior not fitting of a manger.
40. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied the promotion in violation of his right to
make and enforce contracts pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § I98I.
41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful actions. Plaintiff
has sustained injuries and damages including, but not limited to. loss of pay, loss of vacation and
14
COUNT III
RETALIATION-42 U.S.C. ^1981
43. Plaintiff engaged in activity protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1981 when he
complained of racial discrimination at various times throughout his employment.
ANSWER: Paragraph 43 states a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is
43.
44. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff after he reported and opposed
Defendant's harboring of racism, acceptance of racism in the workplace, and racist conduct.
45. Defendant's termination of Plaintiffs employment on this basis violates
42 U.S.C. § I98I.
15
COUNT IV
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
ELLIOT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. M.C.L. S 37.2101 el. sea.
48. At all relevant times. Plaintiff and Defendant were covered by and within
the meaning of the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq.
48.
49. Defendant treated and disciplined Plaintiff differently than similarly-
situated Caucasian employees.
50. Plaintiffs race was a factor that made a difference in Defendant's decision
with work assignments, treatment, and discipline to Plaintiff, including his termination.
51. Defendant's actions were intentional, with reckless indifference and in
disregard of Plaintiffs rights and sensibilities.
has sustained injuries and damages including, but not limited to. loss of pay. loss of vacation and
16
emotional distress, loss of professional reputation, and loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday
life, including the right to pursue gainful occupation ofchoice and incurred substantial liability for
attorney fees.
COUNT V
DENYING PROMOTION ON THE BASIS OF RACE
ELLIOT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. M.C.L. ^ 37.2101 et. sea.
54. During his employment with Defendant, Plaintiff applied for a promotion
as a Production Lead for which there were two openings.
October 2016 and that initially there was one opening for a Production Lead but that another
Production Lead position opened up a short time later. Defendant denies all remaining
55. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of race by selecting
two Caucasian employees over him with inferior skill sets, less seniority, and each had recently
demonstrated egregious behavior not fitting of a manger.
56. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied the promotion in violation of his rights
pursuant to the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq.
17
57. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful actions, Plaintiff
life, including the right to pursue gainful occupation of choice and incurred substantial liability for
attorney fees.
COUNT VI
RETALIATION
ELLIOT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, M.C.L. § 37.2101 et. sea.
59. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity when he opposed a racist worker
environment, racist comments, and reported that the company kept a blind eye to racism and that
he believed he was being treated unfairly and differently than his fellow white employees.
required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits that Plaintiff engaged in
protected activity by reporting racist comments but denies that Plaintiff "reported that the
company kept a blind eye to racism and that he believed he was being treated unfairly and
differently than his fellow white employees." Defendant denies all remaining allegations in
Paragraph 59 because they are untrue.

60. As a result of Plaintiffs protected activity. Plaintiff was disciplined and,
ultimately, terminated.
life, including the right to pursue gainful occupation ofchoice and incurred substantial liability for
attorney fees.
JURY DEMAND
Defendants object to trial by jury except as to those claims so triable and for which
Plaintiff has made a timely demand for jury trial.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Plaintiffs Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
2. Any actions undertaken by Defendant regarding Plaintiff were taken for
lawful and legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-retaliatory business reasons.
2. Plaintiffs claims, in whole or in part, are barred because of laches, waiver,
and/or Plaintiffs unclean hands.
3. Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case or discrimination or retaliation.
4. Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendant's legitimate, non-discriminatory
and non-retaliatory reasons for its actions regarding Plaintiff were pretext for unlawful
discrimination or retaliation.
19
5. Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of
limitations and/or are otherwise untimely.
6. Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that he failed
to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements, failed to exhaust administrative remedies or failed to
satisfy other conditions precedent to bringing suit.
7. Plaintiffs claim for damages and monetary relief are barred because
Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.
8. Defendant is entitled to a set-off against Plaintiffs claim for damages in the
amount(s) that Plaintiff has earned through subsequent employment or benefits.
9. During all relevant times, Defendant had in place effective policies and
procedures to prevent and correct discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace; any
actions contrary to these policies and procedures were contrary to Defendant's good faith efforts
to comply with the anti-discrimination laws, and done without Defendant's consent or
authorization.
10. Plaintiff failed to avail himself of the preventative and/or corrective
procedures provided by Defendant to address any alleged discriminatory, harassing, or retaliatory
behavior directed at Plaintiff.
11. To the extent it is discovered that Plaintiff engaged in misconduct, violation
of Defendant's policies, or other conduct that would have resulted in her termination by Defendant,
or would have precluded Plaintiff rom obtaining employment with Defendant, Plaintiff is subject
to the after-acquired evidence doctrine and limited in his recovery of remedy.
20
12. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive damages and/or
liquidated damages, such damages are unavailable under applicable law andôr are barred based
on Defendants' good faith efforts to comply with the law.
13. Defendant denies all other allegations in the Complaint not specifically
admitted or otherwise responded to in this Answer.
14. Defendant reserves the right to amend or add additional affirmative
defenses or counterclaims that may become known during the course of discovery.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in
its favor, dismissing the Complaint in its entirety with prejudice, and awarding Defendant its costs
of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees, and awarding such other legal and/or equitable relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
MII..LER Johnson
Attorneys for Defendant
Dated: September 17, 2018 By: /s/Patrick M. Edsenâ

Patrick Edsenga (P74593)
45 Ottawa Avenue, S.W., Suite 1100
PO Box 306
Grand Rapids, MI 49501
(616)831-1713
21
M.I DMS 30030957vl 20178-111

Founders Brewing Company Response To Racial Discrimination Lawsuit

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Founders Brewing Company Response To Racial Discrimination Lawsuit

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 2:18-cv-12631-PDB-EAS ECF No. 6 filed 09/17/18 PageID.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:18-cv-12631

V. Hon. Paul D. Borman

CANAL STREET BREWING CO., L.L.C.

Jack W. Schuiz(P78078) Michael E. Stroster(P58982)

DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF^S COMPLAINT

its attorneys. Miller Johnson, answers Plaintiffs Complaint as follows:

ANSWER: Paragraph 1 of the Complaint is introductory in nature, to which no response

2. PlaintiffTracy Evans is an African-American individual who was employed

with the Defendant and resides in Wayne County, Michigan.

ANSWER: Defendant admits it employed Plaintiff in various positions from November

Plaintiff is an African-American individual. Defendant lacks knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 2.

3. Defendant Canal Street Brewing Co., LLC, d/b/a Founders Brewing

Company, is a limited liability corporation headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Founders'

.ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 3.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has original jurisdiction of Plaintiffs § 1981 claims pursuant to

Section 1981 claims.

5. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs

and attorney fees.

ANSWER: Defendant denies that any amount is legitimately in controversy, but

6. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over

Plaintiffs state law claims.

state law claims.

7. This Court is the proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) as a

proper in this action.

8. Plaintiff Tracy Evans("Plaintiff or "Mr. Evans")is African-American and

a member of a protected class based on his race.

Grand Rapids. Michigan facility.

ANSWER: Defendant admits that it hired Plaintiff as a Packaging Machine Operator at

allegations in Paragraph 9 because they are untrue.

estimated seven minorities out of close to Iwo-hundred employees.

.\NSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations in Paragraph 10.

Production Department at that time. Defendant is without knowledge or information

Assistant Shift Lead.

disciplinary practices when compared to his Caucasian comparators.

downstairs general employee printer was named "black guy printer."

they are untrue.

denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 16 because they are untrue.

17. Prior to moving to Detroit, Plaintiff was approached by a Caucasian

to cease, including issuing a disciplinary action to Plaintiffs co-worker. Upon information

and Promotions Manager at Defendant's soon-to-be-opened Detroit taproom beginning in

Paragraph 18 because they are untrue.

to happen. However, nothing was done beyond the write-up.

allegations in Paragraph 19 because they are untrue.

taproom's eliental is. The employee is still employed.

ANSWER: Defendant denies that the employee referenced in Paragraph 19 remains

employed by Defendant. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form

a belief as to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 20.

21. Plaintiff suffered because of Founder's tolerance for a raeist internal

ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 21 because it is untrue.

the necessity of new permits.

Resources personnel about the incidents and his work environment.

attempting to gain Defendant's approval to hold at Defendant's Detroit Taproom. In further

complete event proposal. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 24

because they are untrue.

alongside the employee.

postponed his scheduled day off for fear of retaliation.

in Paragraph 26 because they are untrue.

Separation Agreement, which Plaintiff refused to sign.